Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I'm not sure what you mean here by "balanced ref count" or by "work" :) What > will happen anytime an immortal object gets into the GC, for any reason, is > that the GC will "subtract" cyclic references and see that the immortal > object still has a large refcount even after that adjustment, and so it will > keep the immortal object and any cycle it is part of alive. This behavior is > correct and should be fully expected; nothing breaks. It doesn't matter at > all to the GC that this large refcount is "fictional," and it doesn't break > the GC algorithm, it results only in the desired behavior of maintaining > immortality of immortal objects. Yep, that is right. I think there was a race condition between my previous message and yours :) I think what was confusing me in this line of reasoning is that I was not taking into account that the immortal bit is a very high one, making the refcount gigantic. I was treating it mentally like a flag without factoring the implications of such big reference count. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40255> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
